Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From Figure to Argument: Contrarium in Roman Rhetoric

  • Published:
Argumentation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In Roman rhetoric, contrarium was variably considered either a figure of speech or an argument. The paper examines the logical pattern of this type of argument, which according to Cicero is based on a third Stoic indemonstrable syllogism: \( \neg ({\hbox{p}} \wedge {\hbox{q}});<$> <$>{\hbox{p}} \to \neg {\hbox{q}}{\hbox{.}} \) The persuasiveness of this type of argument, however, vitally depends on the validity of the alleged ‹incompatibility’ forming its major premiss. Yet this appears to be the argument’s weak point, as the ‹incompatibilities’ employed generally hold for the most part only, and are reducible to topical argument schemes. This is why in practical usage such arguments are most often phrased as rhetorical questions, the persuasive force of which, enhanced by certain strategical maneuverings and fallacies, makes the audience swallow the argument.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdullaev S. (1977) Zu den Möglichkeiten der Transposition der Satzarten im Deutschen – Die Grundstrukturen der rhetorischen Frage und des imperativischen Ausrufs. Deutsch als Fremdsprache 14:263–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Anzilotti G. I. (1982) The Rhetorical Question as an Indirect Speech Device in English and Italian. Canadian Modern Language Review 38:290–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Åqvist L. E. G. (1965) A New Approach to the Logical Theory of Interrogations, Part I: Analysis, Filosofiska Föreningen, Uppsala

    Google Scholar 

  • Barth E. M., Martens J. L. (1977/78) Argumentum Ad Hominem: From Chaos to Formal Dialectics. Logique et Analyse. Nouvelle Série 20:76–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Belnap N. D. Jr. (1963) An Analysis of Questions: Preliminary Report, Systems Development Corporation, Santa Monica, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Blankenship K. L., Craig T. Y. (2006) Rhetorical Question Use and Resistance to Persuasion: An Attitude Strength Analysis. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 25(2):111–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bobzien S. (1996) Stoic Syllogistic. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 14:133–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Brinton A. (1985) A Rhetorical View of the Ad Hominem. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63:50–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brinton A. (1995) The Ad Hominem. In: Hansen H. V., Pinto R. C. (eds.), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA, pp. 213–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnyeat M. (1994) Enthymeme: Aristotle on the Logic of Persuasion. In: Furley D. J., Nehamas A. (eds) Aristotle’s Rhetoric: Philosophical Essays, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp. 39–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, H. E. (ed.): 1922, The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian. With an English translation, Vol. III, William Heinemann, London/Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

  • Cacioppo J. T., Petty R. E. (1982) Language Variables, Attitudes, and Persuasion. In: Ryan E. B., Giles H. (eds) Attitudes Towards Language Variation: Social and Applied Contexts. Edward Arnold, London, pp. 189–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Caplan, H. (ed.): 1954, [Cicero], Ad C. Herennium de ratione dicendi. With an English translation, William Heinemann, London/Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

  • Conrad R. (1982) Rhetorische Fragen. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 27:420–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F.H. van, R. Grootendorst (1984) Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions: A Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Discussions Directed towards Solving Conflicts of Opinion, Foris Publications, Dordrecht/Cinnaminson

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R. (1992a) Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies: A Pragma-Dialectical Perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R. (1992b) Relevance Reviewed: The Case of Argumentum ad Hominem. Argumentation 6:141–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, R. Grootendorst (1995a) Argumentum ad Hominem: A Pragma-Dialectical Case in Point. In: Hansen H. V., Pinto R. C. (eds), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA, pp. 223–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R. (1995b) The Pragma-Dialectical Approach to Fallacies. In: Hansen H. V., Pinto R. C. (eds), Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA, pp. 130–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Grootendorst R. (2004) A Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. (1999) Strategic Maneuvering in Argumentative Discourse. Discourse Studies 1:479–497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. (2002a) Strategic Maneuvering: Maintaining a Delicate Balance. In: Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P. (eds) Dialectic and Rhetoric: The Warp and Woof of Argumentation Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London, pp. 131–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Houtlosser P., (2002b) Strategic Maneuvering With the Burden of Proof. In: van Eemeren F. H. (ed) Advances in Pragma-Dialectics. Sic Sat/Vale Press, Amsterdam/Newport News, VA pp. 13–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Eemeren F. H. van, Garssen B., Meuffels B. (2005) The Conventional Validity of the Pragma-Dialectical Freedom Rule. In: van Eemeren F. H., Houtlosser P. (eds), Argumentation in Practice. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp. 349–365

    Google Scholar 

  • Engel S. M. (1994) The Five Forms of the Ad Hominem Fallacy. Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines 14:19–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogelin R. J. (1987) Some Figures of Speech. In: F. H. van Eemeren, R. Grootendorst, J. A. Blair, C. A. Willard (eds.), Argumentation: Across the Lines of Discipline. Proceedings of the Conference on Argumentation 1986. Foris Publications, Dordrecht/Providence, pp. 263–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank J. (1990) You Call That a Rhetorical Question? Forms and Functions of Rhetorical Questions in Conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 14:723–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frede M. (1974) Die stoische Logik. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Grésillon A. (1980) Zum linguistischen Status rhetorischer Fragen. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 8:273–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamblin, C. L.: 1970, Fallacies. Methuen, London; 1998, repr. with a Preface by J. Plecnik and J. Hoaglund and a Current Bibliography by M. F. Schmidt and H. V. Hansen, Vale Press, Newport News, VA

  • Hitchcock D. (2005) The Peculiarities of Stoic Propositional Logic. In: Peacock K. A., Irvine A. D. (eds), Mistakes of Reason: Essays in Honour of John Woods. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp. 224–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitchcock D. (2006) The Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of the Ad Hominem Fallacy. In: Houtlosser P., van Rees A. (eds), Considering Pragma-Dialectics: A Festschrift for F.H. van Eemeren on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 109–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilie C. (1994) What Else Can I Tell You? A Pragmatic Study of English Rhetorical Questions as Discursive and Argumentative Acts, Almqvist & Wiksell, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacquette D. (1994) Many Questions Begs the Question (But Questions Do Not Beg the Question). Argumentation 8:283–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraus M. (2006) Arguing by Question: A Toulminian Reading of Cicero’s Account of the Enthymeme. In: Hitchcock D., Verheij B. (eds), Arguing on the Toulmin Model. Springer, Amsterdam, pp. 313–325

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Krifka M. (1995) The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polarity Items. Linguistic Analysis 25:1–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Mates B (1953) Stoic Logic. University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Meibauer J. (1986) Rhetorische Fragen. Max Niemeyer, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole R. R., Jennings R. E. (2004) The Megarians and the Stoics. In: Gabbay D. M., Woods J. (eds) Handbook of the History of Logic, Vol. 1: Greek, Indian and Arabian Logic. Elsevier North Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 397–522

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Petty R. E., Cacioppo J. T., Heesacker M. (1981) Effects of Rhetorical Questions on Persuasion: A Cognitive Response Analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40:432–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhardt T. (2003) Marcus Tullius Cicero, Topica. Edited with a Translation, Introduction and Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Riposati, B.: 1947, Studi sui ‹Topica’ di Cicerone, Società editrice ‹Vita e pensiero’, Milano

  • Rohde H. (2006) Rhetorical Questions as Redundant Interrogatives. San Diego Linguistics Papers 2:134–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooy R. van (2003) Negative Polarity Items in Questions: Strength as Relevance. Journal of Semantics 20:239–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadock, J. M.: 1971, ‹Queclaratives’, in Papers from the 7th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, pp. 223–232

  • Schmidt-Radefeldt J. (1977) On So-called ‹Rhetorical’ Questions. Journal of Pragmatics 1:375–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle J. R. (1975) Indirect Speech Acts. In: Cole P., Morgan J. L. (eds), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. Academic Press, New York, pp. 59–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle J. R. (1979) Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Slot P. (1993) How Can You Say That? Rhetorical Questions in Argumentative Texts. Ifott, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Stump E. (1988) Boethius’s In Ciceronis Topica. Translated, with Notes and an Introduction. Cornell University Press, Ithaca/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. E.: 1958, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 2003, 2nd edn., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Walton D. N. (1985) Arguer’s Position: A Pragmatic Study of Ad Hominem Attack, Criticism, Refutation and Fallacy. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D. N. (1987) The Ad Hominem Argument as an Informal Fallacy. Argumentation 1:317–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton D. N. (1988) Questions-Asking Fallacies. In: Meyer M. (ed), Questions and Questioning. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, pp. 195–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D. N. (1991a) Begging the Question: Circular Reasoning as a Tactic of Argumentation. Greenwood Press, New York/Westport, CT/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D. N. (1991b) Critical Faults and Fallacies of Questioning. Journal of Pragmatics 15:337–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton D. N. (1996) Plausible Deniability and Evasion of Burden of Proof. Argumentation 10:47–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton D. N. (1998) Ad Hominem Arguments. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods J., Walton D. (1976) Ad Hominem. Philosophical Forum 8:1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Zillman D. (1972) Rhetorical Elicitation of Agreement in Persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 21:159–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zillman D. (1974) Rhetorical Elicitation of Concession in Persuasion. The Journal of Social Psychology 94:223–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Philologisches Seminar, Universität Tübingen, Wilhelmstraße 36, 72074, Tübingen, Germany

    Manfred Kraus

Authors
  1. Manfred Kraus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manfred Kraus.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kraus, M. From Figure to Argument: Contrarium in Roman Rhetoric. Argumentation 21, 3–19 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9042-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation